Master of Public Policy (MPP) Course: ZIGP 6106 Management Name: Jason Loh Seong Wei Matric No.

: ZGA070004

Individual Assignment Question: Critically analyse the key elements in performance management in relation to Malaysia and another country. Do you think these measures are effective in increasing productivity in organisations? Why?

a) Introduction Performance measurement or appraisal is an integral aspect of managing an organisation. The method and process of conducting performance measurement or appraisal is normally termed as,

performance management. Hence, performance measurement is a core element in performance management. The objective of

performance measurement is to evaluate or assess the effectiveness of specific activities which are designated in the job description and scope to ensure that organisational objectives are achieved. Thus,

performance management involves directing and coordinating the entire structure and process of performance measurement of the human resources in an organisation on a regular basis.

In performance measurement, an organisation conducts a comparison of the output or tangible results set against a fixed standard. In a broader context, organisations now engage in benchmarking. Benchmarking as a continuous process of subjecting the performance of the organisation to the best practices in the industry is also a vital component in any performance measurement to ensure competitiveness and viability.1
Management H anR ource Managem um es ent Performance Management P erform ance Meas urem ent/Ap prais al

Figure 1. The relationship of performance management within the management matrix

Lebas (1995) argues that performance is defined as the potential for future successful implementation of actions in order to reach the objectives and targets and that [p]erformance management precedes performance
1

measurement and gives

it meaning.2 Performance

See Donnelly, Jr., J. H.; Gibson, J. I. & Ivancevich, J. M. (1995). Fundamentals of

Management. Richard D. Irwin, p. 290.

Lebas, Michel J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management.

International Journal of Production Economics, 41,pp. 23-35.

management is set within the broader context of management which consists of planning, organising, controlling and leading as constituting the four basic functions of management.3

There many more definitions of performance management which apply to public and private sector organisations. Max Moullin defined performance measurement as evaluating how well organizations are managed and the value they deliver for customers and other stakeholders.4 A more complex definition is offered by Rogers (1990):

Source: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VF8-3YSXP6K-31&_cdi=6004&_user=152948&_pii=092552739500081X&_orig=search&_coverDate=1 0%2F31%2F1995&_sk=999589998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzbzSkWA&md5=f4f25a70ac9fa61f6c93a3661cd5d65b&ie=/sdarticle.pdf>.

For a guide to planning, organising, controlling and leading, see Daft, R. (2008). The

New Era of Management. Thomson South-Western.

Quoted by Fabrizio Bocci. (2004). Defining performance measurement A

comment. Perspectives on Performance (PMA Newsletter), 3(1/2). Source: <http://www.balancedscorecardreview.it/c2005/Definition-of-Performance-

Measurement.pdf>. The Moullin article, Performance measurement definitions Linking performance measurement and organisational excellence. International Journal of Health Source: Care < Quality Assurance, can be found at

<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?

Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0620200301.html>

 an integrated set of planning and review procedures which cascade down through the organization to provide a link between each individual and the overall strategy of the organization.5

There is also no clear agreement on the precise definition of business performance measurement (BPM) system which is a term employed by scholars to refer to the environment and framework in which organisations conducts performance management.6

A BPM system enables the organisation to more effectively plan, design, control, implement and monitor its performance measurement in each of the elements or stages in whole process of performance

management. However the lack of a precise and tightly-knit definition

Rogers, S. (1990). Performance Management in Local Government. Longman: London.

The above passage was quoted by Smith, P. C. & Goddard, M. (2002). Performance management and operational research: A marriage made in heaven? The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(3), pp. 247-255. Source: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/822890>.
6

Franco-Santos, M. et al. (2007). Towards a definition of a business performance system. International Journal of Operations and Production

measurement

Management. Vol. 27(8), pp. 784-801. Source: <https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2789/1/Towards%20a%20definition %20of%20business%20performance%20measurement%20system.pdf>.

of performance management and by extension, BPM means that this applies to the elements themselves. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this essay, the elements of

performance management can be reduced to the following:7 Planning; Monitoring; Developing; Rating; and Rewarding.

This essay will analyse the performance management of the public and private sectors in both Malaysia and Singapore as a comparison. The analysis will include the elements of performance management and their impact on productivity.

b) Public Sector Malaysia and Singapore In Malaysia, performance management is increasingly used in the public sector as an important measure in the on-going modernisation process to improve efficiency and productivity in both the administrative machinery and delivery mechanisms and provide value for stakeholders, particularly
7

the

public

as
of

customers.
Personnel

An

updated

performance
Source:

US

Office

Management.

<http://www.opm.gov/perform/overview.asp>.

management approach was introduced on 1 January 1992 by the Government of Malaysia through the Public Service Department (PSD).8 This was known as the New Performance Appraisal System (NPAS).9

The NPAS is a continuous process which begins in January and ends in December annually.10 Unlike the traditional outlook which treats performance measurement as purely unilateral, i.e. the value of output is determined solely on one side by the performance rater, the contemporary approach is more bilateral or mutually/reciprocally conditioned whereby there is an information exchange. That is, both sides as equally subjects provide input into the performance

measurement exercise.11

Rusli Ahmad & Nur Azman Ali. (2004). Performance appraisal decision in Malaysian

public service. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 48-64. Source: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet;jsessionid=8DF853935CE 84500EF639550D16A1C0A? Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0420170103.pdf>.
9

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. As citing Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (1998). Performance Management: The New

10

11

Realistic, Institute of Personnel and Development (London).

This is demonstrated in the context of the public sector in Malaysia. Rusli & Azman (2004) mention that the initial stage is a meeting encompassing senior officers and rank-and-file to determine

departmental activities for the year, detailed programmes and projects, etc.12 The next stage requires that first rater officers (FRO) and second rater officers (SRO) project the targets and key performance indicators (KPIs).13 The process represents a two-way interaction between the subordinate and the supervisor.14

12

Ibid. For a recent discussion on the development of KPIs in the Malaysian government,

13

see Ismail Adam. (12 July, 2009). Taking public service beyond the ordinary. New Straits Times.
14

Ibid.

Figure 2. Elements in the performance appraisal process in the Malaysian public sector

The employees is responsible for implementing the detailed task activities as agreed. The mid-year performance review starts in June to compare the employeess actual performance and targets. A mid-year performance revision of work progress is required between June and July. The NPAS is also flexible in that it allows for the planning and targeting to be changed according to constraints, pressures and other factors which can affect work performance.15

After this is preparation of the performance appraisal report by a performance appraisal committee (PAC) which functions as the coordinator. During the preparation, the PAC will collect the relevant evaluation forms the first half of which has been filled in the employees concerned and hand them to the FRO as the immediate supervisor for assessment.16

If and when necessary, the FRO and the employees will have a preliminary discussion regarding the performance appraisal process and decision. Only then will the decision be subjected to the SRO for the overall departmental rating. The next stages are the performance
15

Ibid. Ibid.

16

appraisal and salary movement co-ordination.17 PAC will maintain all the performance appraisal reports and submit them for action by the Board of Salary Movement (BSM). BSM is also responsible for performance appraisal co-ordination.

However, there had been strong criticism of the NPAS emanating from Congress of Union of Employees in the Public and Civil Services (CUEPACS), the union representing the welfare and interests of civil servants in Malaysia.18 A survey by the CUEPACS showed that 90 per cent of civil servants were dissatisfied with the NPAS.19 The main reasons had to do with lack of objectivity and competency in performing the appraisal.20

17

Ibid. Op. cit. Ibid. Ibid.

18

19

20

Figure 3. An outline of the NPAS from the perspective of the rater21 On 1 November 2002, a revised scheme called the Sistem Saraan Malaysia (SSM) or its English equivalent, Malaysia Remuneration System (MRS) was introduced.22 To complement the MRS, a sub-tool termed the Competency Level Assessment (CAL) or Penilaian Tahap Kecakapan (PTK) was designed to raise the capacity and capability of civil servants in knowledge and skills, including information and communications technology (ICT) to create a knowledge worker (k-worker).23

Unfortunately, MRS and CAL were subjected to the same criticism by

21

Known as cognitive processing model (CPM). Ibid. Sayed Mahmud Afdhal Yamani. Penilaian tahap kecakapan (competency level

22

23

assessment) as a problematic human capital developing strategy for Malaysias public servant. Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG). Source: <http://www.napsipag-research.org/pdf/SAYED.pdf>. See also Syed Omar Sharifuddin & Rowland, F. (2004). Benchmarking knowledge management in a public organisation in Malaysia. Benchmarking: An International Journal. Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 238-266.

10

CUEPACS. Intriguingly, CUEPACS thought that the NPAS was better and urged for a revamp in favour of a more workable appraisal scheme.24

One crucial area where performance management is linked to the modernisation process has been the introduction of an e-government which involves the implementation of ICT which was in introduced in 1996 as one of the seven flagship programmes of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC).25 The agency tasked with the architecture and construction of ICT initiatives in the public sector towards an egovernment is the Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and

Management Planning Unit (MAMPU).26

Simultaneously, ICT is employed to foster an integrated performance management system to:27

Produce a single, integrated platform for collaboration and information sharing;

24

Ibid. A decade of e-government. (12 October 2009). The Star.

25

Source: <http://www.mampu.gov.my/pdf/star121009.pdf>.
26

Website: <http://www.mampu.gov.my>. Source: <http://www.mampu.gov.my/1e-gov/papers/Plenary5/P5P1.pdf>.

27

11

 Promote access and integrate data automatically from disparate operational, systems; Boost links between programme and service costs at the individual agency level; Consolidate information from all departments and agencies for a 360degree view of performance; and Use analytics to transform that information into insights that can drive confident decision making. budget, performance planning and cost accounting

Raha and Abdul Razak (2005) note that the outcome had been mixed.28 One of the critical findings was the lack of a consistent and thorough conformity to the implementation of the e-government blueprint.29 This
28

Raha Othman and Abdul Razak Rahmat. (2005). The analysis of electronic blueprint for implementation towards the actual e-government

government

implementation. Source: <http://eg2km.org/articles/The%20Comprehensive%20Analysis%20of%20eGovernment%20Blueprint%20for%20Implementation%20towards%20the%20Actual %20e-governemnt%20Implementation.pdf>. See also Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi. (2009). Case Studies on Government Programs and Policies. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
29

See also Raha Othman. (2005). A comprehensive analysis of electronic government

blueprint for implementation towards the actual e-government implementation. (Masters thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia). Source: <http://ep3.uum.edu.my/1329/1/RAHA_BT._OTHMAN.pdf>.

12

resulted in an uneven application of the ICT to the entire public sector organisational structure. Such a characteristic feature which currently besets the public sector not only impedes the full extent of efficient and effective administration and delivery.

Performance management gets bogged down by a narrow focus on remedial measures, instead of setting KPIs to drive strategies towards developing the potential of employees. Thus, the formulation of new performance measures in tandem with improved existing performance levels cannot take place. The end result is that performance

management cannot properly complete its full cycle.

Furthermore, employees are demoralised and lack confidence in the performance management system. And they suffer a drawback in terms of output for fear that it will be subjected to overly-rigorous standards. Implicit in this scenario is also the impact on productivity. Noore Alam (2006) has documented the persistent sluggish performance of the Malaysian public sector despite the introduction of performance measurement schemes in Public management reform in Malaysia.30

30

Noore Alam Siddique. (2006). Public management reform in Malaysia. International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), pp. 339-358. Source: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?

Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0420190403.html>

13

For example, the public sector recorded 58 per cent increase in formal complaints from the public. The complaints revolved around issues such as delays in service provision, unfair actions/decisions on part of administrators, abuse of power, misconduct of the officials, failure to enforce rules are among the common complaints made to and regularly received by the PCB (2003).31

In addition to the NPAS, there is also the Malaysia Modified Budgeting System (MBS). The MBS offers greater managerial flexibility and accountability it performs on par with international best practice and is being used in some developing countries as a model World Bank Report (1999).32 The MBS makes use of Integrated Performance Management Framework, which provides baseline data that allows measurement of comparable progress and results at predetermined intervals.

Performance data are explicitly focused on measuring performance progress areas such as key result areas (KRAs), goals, objectives, outcomes, outputs, and activities. Such performance data are monitored
31

Ibid.
32

Public Expenditure Management in Malaysia: How Malaysia Performs Malaysia, cited

in Thomas, K. (2007). Integrated results-based management the Malaysia experience (Part III). Managing for Development Results Principles in Action. Source: <http://www.mfdr.org/sourcebook/2ndEdition/4-2MalaysiaRBM.pdf>.

14

against predetermined targets.33 The MBS was actually introduced in 1990 and revised as the Integrated RBM (IRBM) system in 1999 to take into account the missing links, namely:34

It did not integrate the operating and development budgets, and the personnel performance system; and

It created only limited linkages between budget performance, resource usage, and policy implementation.

Despite the revision, there were still short-comings which had to be rectified. The corrective action was a consequence of integrating a unique computerised applications solution or platform known as the PPMSTM8 (Programme Performance Management System) in 2004.35

In Singapores public sector, performance management is geared towards efficient allocation of resources. Thus the budget allocation is linked to the ministrys performance. And one of the critical tools used to measure performance in the public sector is the balanced scorecard (BSC).36
33

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Kon, D. Performance measurement and management: a Singapore perspective.

34

35

36

Measuring Business Excellence, 9(3).

15

It was conceived by Robert Kaplan and David Norton as a performance measurement framework that added strategic non-financial

performance measures to traditional financial metrics to give managers and executives a more 'balanced' view of organizational performance. 37 The BSC methodology was adopted to achieve the following objectives:38

Clearer linkages between vision, mission and action; Balanced view, internally and externally; Proactive management; and Simple and critical performance measures.

An example where BSC has successfully applied is the court system. The BSC started with one division, i.e. the Small Claims Court as pilot project in 1998.39 A Steering Committee reviewed and monitored the BSC every
Source: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet? contentType=NonArticle&Filename=Published/NonArticle/Articles/26709caf.004.html>.
37

Source:

<http://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/ 55/Default.aspx>.
38

Ibid. Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) Review. <http://www.epmreview.com/Resources/Case-Studies/Subordinate-Courts-

39

Source:

Singapore.html>.

16

month. After 6 months, the Steering Committee decided to cascade the implementation of the BSC to the entire judiciary. Chan Wai Yin, Director of Research and Statistics Unit stated that:

The pilot programme proved that the scorecard provided a clear advance over the existing performance measurement system. As the scorecard is a predictive system we were able to detect early warnings of what was going to happen and so take preventative action. The scorecard made it far easier for us to see what we were doing and how we were doing it. We also discovered that the scorecard significantly improved communications. Being a two-way system whereby employees could better report and discuss performance we found it actually changed the whole paradigm of performance monitoring, improvement and measurement.40 The key success factors for the BSC implementation in the Small Claims Court of the Singapore judiciary could be attributed to the a) commitment of the top management commitment; b) establishment of a clear purpose of its implementation; c) positive attitude to change in the organisation; and d) effective communication of the goals and KPIs within the organisation.

c) Private Sector Malaysia and Singapore BSC is a favourite tool in performance management by private sector organisations.41 In a study on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Malaysia with a special focus on healthcare service providers
40

Ibid.

17

(i.e. private firms contracted as vendors to the public healthcare system), it was found that the implementation of BSC in four key areas of a) learning and growth; b) mission and vision; c) customer satisfaction; and d) internal business perspective are vital for

organisational development.42

On the other hand, where a market or industry is dominated by oligopoly, there is no incentive to measure and benchmark performance against best practices to improve technical efficiency and reduce wastage.43 This is amply illustrated in the case of Malaysias container haulage industry where there are very few players, and many of the existing ones are subsidiaries of conglomerates such as MISC44 and

41

Abdullah Mohd Ayedh. (2007). Performance measurement practices in the Malaysian

companies: An exploratory study. (Masters thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia).

Budi Suprapto, Hasnida Abdul Wahab & Jatmiko W. A. (2009). The implementation

of balanced score card for performance measurement in small and medium enterprises: evidence from Malaysian health care services. Asian Journal of Technology Management. 2(2), pp. 37-49.
43

Zailani Mohd Zaid & Mohd Zaly Shah. (2007). Performance measurement in

Malaysian container haulage industry: a critical evaluation. (Presented at a postgraduate seminar, University Technology Malaysia). Source: <http://eprints.utm.my/1834/1/Zailani_and_Zaly__Transport_.pdf>.
44

The parent company of MISC is PETRONAS, a government-linked company (GLC).

Website: <http:// www.misc.com.my>

18

Kontena Nasional.45 The implication is that even in the private sector, performance management with specific reference to BSC still has a long way to go. In the meantime, the lack of a across the board standard will perhaps to continue to persist.

Environmental

management

system

(EMS)

certification

is

also

increasingly playing a pivotal role in assessing and contributing to a firms performance in Malaysia.46 EMS relates to the capacity of firms to effectively respond to environmental issues as integral to their business strategy and performance.47 Though market demand is theoretically insatiable, environmental management is concretely premised on the scarcity of resources and constraints of space; hence, the concept of sustainability applies equally to profit-driven institutions.

45

Ibid. Goh, E. A., Suhaiza Zailani & Nabsiah A. Wahid. (2006). A study on the impact of

46

environmental management system (EMS) certification towards firms performance in Malaysia Management of Environmental Quality. Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-93.
47

Montabon, F., Meinyk, S.A., Stroofe, R. & Calantone, R.J. (2000), ISO 14000:

Assessing its perceived impact on corporate performance, Journal of Supply Chain Management, pp. 4-16.

19

Through the introduction of international standard indices such as ISO14001, firms can benchmark against good environmental practices. ISO 14001 consists of five essential elements:48

Formal commitment embodied in a policy; Planning; Implementation and operation; Checking and corrective action; and Management review and continual improvement.

It has been found to have a positive impact on the business and environmental performance of firms in Malaysia.49 Thus, they meet the environmental concerns of their stakeholders, particularly customers and help to properly optimise the use of renewable and non-renewable resources in an environment fraught with uncertainties, be it natural (e.g. climate) or man-made (e.g. globalisation).

Whereas EMS applies more specifically to the former, in meeting the uncertainties and challenges of man-made globalisation, there is a need for the private sector to collaborate closer with the government in retraining and upgrading the skills of the workforce.50 This is part and parcel of performance management. Indeed, the introduction of the New
48

Op. cit. Based on Boiral, O. & Sala, J.-M. (1998), Environmental management:

should industry adopt ISO14001?. Business Horizons, January/February, pp. 57-64.

Ibid.

20

Economic Model (NEM) in mid-2010 to coincide with the introduction of the 10th Malaysia Plan is timely to spur the country towards high-income level on the back of sustained productivity and innovation.

In Singapore, the multi-dimensionality of total quality management (TQM) has impinged on performance appraisal of the private sector. It has been shown that where TQM was embedded in the performance measurement process of Singapore companies, their productivity and output generally increased and improved.51 A longitudinal study on Singapore Airlines (SIA) has found that its business and organisational performance in the industry is almost unrivalled anywhere in the world due to its resilience and competitiveness.52 One of the critical determinants in the success of SIA has been its ability to generate a

50

Hamisah Hamid (7 August, 2009). Trained workforce will drive performance. New

Straits Times. Tan Sri Sulaiman Mahbob in a Public Policy Colloquium lecture on labour, wages and productivity dated 22 March 2010 confirmed that this was the scenario.
51

Shaukat A. Brah, Tee, S. S .L. & Rao, B. M. (2002). Relationship between TQM and

performance of Singapore companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 19(4), pp. 356-379. Source: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet? Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0400190401.html>.
52

Chan, D. (2000). The story of Singapore Airlines and the Singapore Girl. Journal of

Management Development. 19(6), pp. 456-472.

21

service excellence-oriented vision which continues to its enduring hallmark.53 Thus, SIAs performance management involves, inter alia, setting up very high customer service standards. This is supported by a rigorous quality control system in employee recruitment and selection.54 Hence, the productivity levels of SIA have been enhanced in the context of TQM.

d) Conclusion By way of comparison, it is argued that the implementation of performance management techniques such as the BSC has produced varying results in the Malaysian and Singaporean public sectors. On the whole, the Singapore public sector fared better than its Malaysian counterpart at the implementation level (e.g. controlling, monitoring), although at the conceptualisation/planning level, both demonstrate competency and sophistication.

To reiterate, the shortcoming in implementation has a bearing on the productivity of the Malaysian public sector. In its Annual Productivity Report (2008), the Malaysian Productivity Corporation (MPC) stated that public sector productivity only grew by about 3.8 percent in 2008.55
53

Ibid. Ibid. Citing Asia Business Review (1996, p. 34). Chapter 7: Productivity performance of the public sector.

54

55

Source: <http://www.mpc.gov.my/v1/files/APR2008/Chapter7.pdf>

22

Although this figure is commendable, it hardly constitutes a quantum leap in productivity which is supposed to be boosted by performance management elements and measures. On the other hand, productivity growth in the private sector is comparable, i.e. on average trailing closely.56 In such a case, comparing the performance of performance management in both the Malaysian public and private sectors does not easily yield decisive conclusions.

Perhaps there should be a paradigm shift, at least in relation to performance management approaches in Malaysian organisations, which de-emphasise the element of rating or classification of an employees performance. Thus, the move away from traditional outlook of a flat measurement whereby rating determines evaluation does not go far enough.

Rather, whilst rating should not be necessarily displaced, the focus should be on the element of motivation. Hence, the performance measurement process itself will be subject to less controversy, e.g. on the subjectivity of the rater; and more on ensuring self-evaluation. Such self-evaluation can then be put to rigorous comparison with that of the rater, and any discrepancies or anomalies can be ironed out.

56

Chapter 1: Productivity performance of Malaysia.

Source: < http://www.mpc.gov.my/v1/files/APR2008/Chapter1.pdf>.

23

It is clear, nonetheless, the lack of total commitment and support by CUEPACS is a strong factor discouraging or even hindering the performance management process in the Malaysian public sector. Thus, the success of performance management in the public sector in Malaysia requires the wholehearted consent of its rank-and-file

employees so that the introduction of a scheme will not be perceived as unnecessary pressure, which ironically may affect work morale and motivation, and therefore productivity.

In the case of the private sector scenario, again it is arguable that Singaporean firms exhibit higher acceptance of benchmarking standards than do their Malaysian counterparts. However, it is clear that Malaysia private sector are just as quick to adapt to new performance management measures and use them to their own advantage. What is needed is a dynamic synergy between the public and private sectors in Malaysia.

The private sector can respond to the policies of the government by establishing institutions which promote efficient performance and good practices in the work environment of the various industries considered as part of total factor productivity (TFP).57 The private sector can help to
57

The MPCs definition of TFP is efficiency and effectiveness of all factors of production. Source: sstr_lang=en&cont=ds&id=1i9&item=d1&t=4> <http://www.mpc.gov.my/home/?

24

formulate, improve upon and monitor the performance management measures in the industry. One example is the formation of the Malaysian Alliance of Corporate Directors (MACD) in mid-2009. The MACD aims to develop professional standards for the captains of industry. Moreover, in view of the current global financial crisis and economic doldrums, the call to ensure appropriately designed performance management measures is more relevant than even to ensure realistic adjustments are correspondingly made to the compensation and benefits (C&B) scheme(s).58

The private sector need not be overly reliant on external stimulus such as tax incentives to boost productivity of the workforce. Instead, they can partner with the public sector in enhancing the exchange of good practices and technical expertise so that the performance management can enjoy cross-fertilisation, i.e. the best of both worlds in the quest to boost productivity in line with gross domestic product (GDP), and elevate the economic growth and development of the nation.

58

For performance management in the case of top executives, see Dharma Chandran.

Manager@Work: Perform or perish. (1 March, 2010). The Edge.

25

Selected bibliography:
1. Daft, R. (2008). New Era of Management (2nd ed.). Thomson South-

Western.
2. Donnelly, Jr., J. H.; Gibson, J. I. & Ivancevich, J. M. (1995).

Fundamentals of Management (9th ed.). Richard D. Irwin.

Guide to Action. Kogan Page Ltd.

26

27